Systematic reviews of single-case experimental research (SCER) in special education often use the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to assess the methodological rigor of studies within a given literature base. While significant changes were made between the two most recent versions of the WWC standards, no research to date has evaluated the extent to which these standards would result in different evaluation outcomes. To examine potential differences, we applied version 4.1 and 5.0 of the standards to a sample database of SCER addressing the challenging behavior of students with autism in general education settings. Systematic search, screening, and review procedures resulted in a total of 20 articles included for this review. Findings indicated a 27% change in overall ratings across the studies, with version 5.0 leading to lower ratings than version 4.1, due to factors such as a lack of assessment of procedural fidelity, therapeutic baseline trends, and insufficient data points in the first baseline phase. We discuss implications for research based on our findings and recommend future directions for SCER in the field of special education.

中文翻译：

---

单案例研究有效信息交换所标准的比较：系统评价的应用

特殊教育中单案例实验研究 (SCER) 的系统评价通常使用 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 标准来评估给定文献基础内研究方法的严谨性。虽然 WWC 标准的两个最新版本之间发生了重大变化，但迄今为止还没有研究评估这些标准将在多大程度上导致不同的评估结果。为了检查潜在的差异，我们将 4.1 版和 5.0 版标准应用于 SCER 样本数据库，以解决普通教育环境中自闭症学生的挑战性行为。通过系统检索、筛选和审查程序，本次审查共收录了 20 篇文章。调查结果表明，由于缺乏对程序保真度、治疗基线趋势的评估以及第一个基线阶段数据点不足等因素，所有研究的总体评级发生了 27% 的变化，5.0 版本的评级低于 4.1 版本。我们根据我们的发现讨论了研究的意义，并为 SCER 在特殊教育领域的未来方向提出了建议。